601–610 of 737 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume you mean Islamic. More to the point, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for decades. The US prepared for _this_ war with Iran for a couple of weeks.
No, I meant Iranic. Pashtun and Parsi "Dari" speakers are canonically Iranic ethnic groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USA can win this war with barely any casualties What do you mean by "win"? What strategic goals can the US achieve in this war? We're at a point where merely achieving status quo ante bellum--i.e., Iran doesn't charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz--seems to require giving concessions elsewhere. In many ways, this looks like the American version of Pearl Harbor--a stunning tactical victory that is simulta…
> We're at a point where merely achieving status quo ante bellum--i.e., Iran doesn't charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz--seems to require giving concessions elsewhere. No, there is no reality where the world will let Iran take tolls here, no matter what happens that part wont happen. The world depends too much on straits being open and toll free, if you let that slide once it will be done by others and t…
I’m not convinced that bitcoin is stable enough to use in insurance products. The currency volatility risk is too high to reasonably cover the covered losses which will need to be covered in some other currency to do things like replace boats etc.
This isnt an insurance product though. Its “insurance”, aka extortion.
> Iran has started a Bitcoin-backed insurance service for Iranian shipping companies that want to transit the Strait of Hormuz, the semi-official Fars news agency reported, citing documents obtained from the country’s Ministry of Economy and Financial Affairs.
> According to a screen shot of the insurance company’s website, dubbed Hormuz Safe and shared by Fars news, it “provides Iranian shipping companies and cargo owners with fast, verifiable digital insurance.” Fars didn’t give a detailed break down of how the insurance works and whether it’s available to foreign shipping companies and vessels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really in my interest for a cabal of pedophiles to win this one. I dispute the conflation of the interests of the capitalist class with the american people.
Wow. You know, I think Trump is dangerous to our Republic, almost certainly committing graft and fraud using the Office of the President for personal gain, probably a rapist and maybe a pedophile. I don't know. But that has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with our national security and the geopolitical reality of the Russian-Iranian-Chinese-North Korean Axis and the threat that axis poses to the democratic free-worl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries that haven't signed do violate it. Israel prevents ships free transit to the Gaza strip. US does naval blockades and blows up boats.
Naval blockades of enemy ports during war are legal, that is what USA and Israel argue they are doing. That is not what Iran is doing, they are blocking fully neutral ships from going in other countries waterways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is US blocking hormuz straits then?
The US is is not blocking the Strait of Hormuz. There don't appear to be any US warships even in the Strait at the moment. What the US is doing is enforcing a partial blockade against Iran, largely in waters southeast of the Strait. We can argue about whether this is a good policy but let's not make things up. https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the US and Israeli regimes don't particularly care about the other victims whining This does seem to be true of israel, but as for the USA, it does not, hence the USA limiting their attacks. > If other countries are going to make themselves dependent on fossil fuels from the Persian Gulf region then they'll either have to secure their own sea lines of communication or accept that supplies are unreliable. This sort…
It's not rhetoric. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just explaining how things work. Since the other countries largely lack the ability to act, their support or lack thereof is irrelevant. The US and Israel have no incentive to apologize or pay restitution; more likely outcomes are that they either escalate, or unilaterally disengage and leave others to clean up the mess.
How is their support, or lack thereof, irrelevant to our discussion that is literally about whether they support the war? Here is a reminder of the topic, from the post you replied to:
> Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.
That poster and I are just explaining how things work. Seems like you might agree with us here? Indeed, since most other countries do not support the war, their ability to act is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world. The world already knew. The real strength of the prior admins was in simply not needing the military force. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal is a relevant example here. It didn't cost the US anything .
I mean it really didn't get us anything either. It's not like Iran stopped working towards nuke when they signed it.
There's no insurance scheme the IRGC can concoct that protects against the US navy hitting your rudder with a 20mm gun.